Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. The description adds useful context about what 'state' includes, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as freshness, side effects, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates all returned information without filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only info tool with rich annotations, the description is complete enough: it names all major output categories (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), and no output schema exists to backfill this information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter burden for the description to carry.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') while enumerating the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or connect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for inspecting toolkit state and connection status, but it does not explicitly say when to use it or how it relates to alternatives like connect or authenticate. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are distinct: kb_* tools handle knowledge base operations, while authenticate/connect/marketplace/toolkit_info serve system-level purposes. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' overlap slightly in reporting connection status, and 'marketplace' is a broad multi-purpose tool that might be confused with 'report_bug' for feedback.
The kb_* tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (kb_add_text, kb_get_document, kb_ingest_url, etc.), but system tools break the pattern: 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version', 'toolkit_info' use varying conventions (bare verbs, nouns, compound names). The mixed style reduces overall consistency.
With 13 tools, the server covers both the knowledge base domain (9 kb_* tools) and platform management (4 system tools). This is a well-scoped count that doesn't feel bloated, and each tool addresses a distinct operational need.
The kb_* tools cover the core lifecycle: add text, ingest URLs, get/list documents, search, remove. Missing obvious operations like 'update document' or 'create a new empty document' are minor gaps easily worked around. The marketplace tool adds extensibility that mitigates domain gaps, but within the stated purpose the coverage is strong.